On 5/14/10 10:52 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 14, 8:03 am, wrote:
It IS an OIL GUSHER!http://www.rense.com/general90/spill.htm

What will they (''They'') call that OIL GUSHER when it gets into the
Gulf Stream and starts Fouling the Beaches and Wildlife along the
Atlantic Coast?
What will the Brits call it when it gets to British Beaches?
I call it a British POLLUTION OIL GUSHER!
cuhulin

Indeed - but it could have been *any* one of a number of oil
companies, American too, whose well went bad - BP's number just came
up this time...along with their American subcontractors Transoceanic
and (cough cough) Halliburton.

FWIW, according to some sources, BPs quality control, here and in many
other locations, is apparently lacking. They seem to have a corporate
culture in which bending the regulations and tryig to fly under the
radar with problems is rampant. They probably are not the only ones.
This is probably an understatement. Nobody gets rich being honest
anymore.

Bruce



BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental
friendliness until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this
spill.

BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and
exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest
volume of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry.

BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon.

On May 14, 10:10*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/14/10 10:52 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 14, 8:03 am, wrote:
It IS an OIL GUSHER!http://www.rense.com/general90/spill.htm

What will they (''They'') call that OIL GUSHER when it gets into the
Gulf Stream and starts Fouling the Beaches and Wildlife along the
Atlantic Coast?
What will the Brits call it when it gets to British Beaches?
I call it a British POLLUTION OIL GUSHER!
cuhulin

Indeed - but it could have been *any* one of a number of oil
companies, American too, whose well went bad - BP's number just came
up this time...along with their American subcontractors Transoceanic
and (cough cough) Halliburton.

FWIW, according to some sources, BPs quality control, here and in many
other locations, is apparently lacking. *They seem to have a corporate
culture in which bending the regulations and tryig to fly under the
radar with problems is rampant. *They probably are not the only ones.
This is probably an understatement. *Nobody gets rich being honest
anymore.

Bruce

* BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental
friendliness until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this
spill.

* BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and
exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest
volume of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry.

* BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you still think BP deserves the award?

It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this
attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including
some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is
looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain
mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5
minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when
inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like
this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck.

There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other
countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less
than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S.
does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or
without regulation, should employ these methods anyway.

It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to
verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete
casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of
these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were
an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be
very hesitant to use their services.

I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a
large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an
isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper
outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably
could have avoided this problem.

Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at
the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the
top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could
sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose
we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those
proportionate shares.

Bruce Jensen

D. Peter Maus wrote:

BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental friendliness
until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this spill.

BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and
exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest volume
of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry.

BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon.

More WLS facts?

Newser) – As the Gulf of Mexico turns into an oil-slicked environmental
disaster, BP is quick to point the finger at Transocean, the owner and
operator of the doomed Deepwater Horizon. But, as the New York Times
reports, the oil giant itself has a history littered with spills,
blowouts, safety violations, and promises to clean up its act. “It is a
corporate problem,” says Rep. Bart Stupak, who will grill BP execs
Wednesday. “Their mentality is to get in the foxhole and batten down the
hatch."

Among infractions on BP's safety resume: a 2005 blast at a Texas
refinery that killed 15 employees; a neglected pipeline that burst in
2006 and dumped 200,000 gallons of oil on Alaska's North Slope; and more
than $550 million in safety fines in the years since, including 700
violations in the Texas refinery alone last year. Ironically, the Times
notes the standard-bearer of industry safety: ExxonMobil, author of the
1989 Exxon Valdez disaster.

bpnjensen wrote:


I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a
large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an
isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper
outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably
could have avoided this problem.


The cement failed its pressure test, twice. BP gave the OK anyway
(after an alleged 3rd pressure test for which there are no records) to
seal the hole.

On 5/14/10 13:16 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 14, 10:10 am, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/14/10 10:52 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 14, 8:03 am, wrote:
It IS an OIL GUSHER!http://www.rense.com/general90/spill.htm

What will they (''They'') call that OIL GUSHER when it gets into the
Gulf Stream and starts Fouling the Beaches and Wildlife along the
Atlantic Coast?
What will the Brits call it when it gets to British Beaches?
I call it a British POLLUTION OIL GUSHER!
cuhulin

Indeed - but it could have been *any* one of a number of oil
companies, American too, whose well went bad - BP's number just came
up this time...along with their American subcontractors Transoceanic
and (cough cough) Halliburton.

FWIW, according to some sources, BPs quality control, here and in many
other locations, is apparently lacking. They seem to have a corporate
culture in which bending the regulations and tryig to fly under the
radar with problems is rampant. They probably are not the only ones.
This is probably an understatement. Nobody gets rich being honest
anymore.

Bruce

BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental
friendliness until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this
spill.

BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and
exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest
volume of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry.

BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you still think BP deserves the award?


Depends on the outcome of the investigation. BP did not own the
platform, and was not exclusively involved in its maintenance and
operation.



It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this
attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including
some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is
looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain
mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5
minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when
inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like
this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck.

There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other
countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less
than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S.
does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or
without regulation, should employ these methods anyway.

It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to
verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete
casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of
these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were
an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be
very hesitant to use their services.


There are only two companies in the world that offers those
services. One is Halliburton. The other is Schlumberger, which is
not a domestically owned company, so environmental rules would be
difficult to enforce.

That leaves Halliburton. There is no one else offering these
services.



I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a
large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an
isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper
outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably
could have avoided this problem.

There is no way to specify from the top down, because, often the
forces encountered are so far outside expectation, experience, or
imagination, there is no specification. Mother nature in her fury is
not something we can predict, nor manage. If we could, we'd be
powering New York with lightning.

We've gotten so used to controlling natural events, as a species,
that we sometimes forget that there are things outside our ability
to control, outside our ability to manage, or even deal with.

Methane bubbles are the nature, and one of the great risks, of
the oil business. I worked for a petroleum geologist some years ago.
And I expressed these same concerns, and as an active broadcaster at
the time (he owned the radio station) his interests were served in
answering my questions. So he took me out onto the platforms where I
was allowed to ask straight forward unvarnished questions from
non-PR types...ie, working crew on the platform. Since he was a
scientist and not a wildcatter, I got a nowhere near exposure than
when I asked the same questions of those actively producing. One of
my clients owns oil wells, and I get a lot of first hand, there,
too. And it's a much different perspective.

The risks are enormous. And the forces being dealt with are
equally enormous. And nearly impossible to predict. Even when
estimates are expanded to 10 times expected pressures and more, they
can be inadequate to what's really encountered. You must bear in
mind that the technology is often developed on the spot in direct
response to conditions that can't be predicted, and are fueled by
Mother Nature's moods.

Companies like Red Adair came into being to bring solutions to
wells that can't be controlled. Adair's solution is to dynamite them
shut and destroy the well. A massive resort to violence. Because
management is impossible.

It's a business full of risks. That's why there are only two
companies doing it. Halliburton and Schlumberger. BP hires the best,
with the best track record. That's Halliburton. Schlumberger does
not have the resources, the experience or the ability to do what
Halliburton does. Nor do they give enough of a **** about the
consequences of an accident to put them in charge of such a well as
Deepwater Horizon.

You should see a Schlumberger site. Halliburton's sites are
surgical theatres by comparison.

But, again, we're dealing with Nature and her whims. **** happens.

Nonetheless, BP has the best track record.

The award, had it been issued, would have been earned.



Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at
the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the
top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could
sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose
we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those
proportionate shares.


There's no doubt it's going to be a legal mess. And there's going
to be a lot of punitive action clamored for. But likely, that will
be politically motivated. Not equal to the actual damage.

But here's something that's not being discussed: The amount of
this spill is about the same volume of petroleum that seeps into the
Gulf through the silt, every day. And that seepage has been going on
for centuries. The ocean, and nature have found a way to deal with
that seepage. And a protracted oil slick hasn't developed from the
hundreds of years of seepage in the Gulf.

Which goes a long way toward explaining that about 35% of the oil
that's been spilled is no longer in the slick. It's already
disappeared. Not just dissipated. Gone. It, too, has been gobbled
up by the ocean. Some of it's settling out, and attaching to the
silt, as with natural seepage. Some has dissipated. Some has been
consumed by natural chemical processes, and some has been consumed
by biological entities. All of which points to the growing
understanding that the damage, as expected, will be less than
predicted, with far, far shorter endurance than claimed.

The Exxon Valdez spill was supposed to have destroyed the oceanic
environment for 100 miles around the spill for the next 150 years.

Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life.
The oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local
lifestyle is better than before the spill.

Doesn't mean it wasn't bad. Just that it wasn't as cataclysmic as
the hand wringers were claiming.

This one won't be either.

RHF wrote:


- Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life.
- The oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local
- lifestyle is better than before the spill.

Exxon Valdez Anniversary: 20 Years Later, Oil Remains
Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
March 23, 2009

Two decades after the worst oil spill in U.S. history, huge quantities
of oil still coat Alaska's shores with a toxic glaze, experts say.

More than 21,000 gallons of crude oil remain of the 11 million gallons
of crude oil that bled from the stranded tanker Exxon Valdez on the
night of March 23, 1989.

The oil—which has been detected as far as 450 miles (724 kilometers)
away from the spill site in Prince William Sound—continues to harm
wildlife and the livelihoods of local people, according to conservation
groups. (See an Alaska map.)

Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, who was on the ground at the Exxon Valdez
disaster as Alaska's commissioner of environmental conservation,
remembers wading through knee-deep pools of bubbling, thick oil. The
smell of the pure oil was intense and pungent, he said.

When he returned to the same beaches years later, he found "surprisingly
fresh" oil just below the sand.

(Related: "Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over Arctic Wildlife, Future
Drilling".)

"The damage that [the spill] created is something beyond anyone's
imagination," said Michel Boufadel, Temple University's Civil and
Environmental Engineering chair, who has just completed research on why
the oil persists.

Oil-Munching Bacteria

An 11,000-person crew removed oil from the beaches until 1994, when
government officials decided to end the clean up effort. At that time,
what was left of the the oil was naturally disintegrating at a high
rate, and experts predicted it would be gone within a few years. But
they were wrong.

Oil naturally "disappears" through two processes: As the tide rises over
an oil patch, the water sloughs off bits of oil, which then disperse
into the ocean as tiny, less harmful droplets that can biodegrade easily.

Biodegradation occurs when bacteria or other microorganisms break down
oil as part of their life cycle.

But Prince William Sound is what ecologists call a closed system—it's
not exposed to big, pounding waves, so the oil has time to seep into the
sand, according to Margaret Williams, who oversees conservation in the
Bering Sea for the nonprofit World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

In these stagnant areas, oil-munching bacteria don't receive the
nutrient-rich water flow they need to thrive, said Temple University's
Boufadel.

"The assumption that oil is going to disappear is surprising—we have to
put an effort into understanding oil spills and how they interact with
the environment much better," Boufadel said.

Boufadel's research on the leftover oil was funded by the Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill Trustee Council, a state and federal partnership to restore
the damaged ecosystem.

Shangri-La of the North

Twenty years of oil exposure has injured this stretch of Alaska's coast,
which WWF's Williams calls the Shangri-la of the north.

In its first toxic sweep, the oil spill killed about 250,000 seabirds,
4,000 sea otters, 250 bald eagles, and more than 20 orca whales,
according to WWF.

Today, one of the orca pods that lost family members has not recovered.

Sea otters and harlequin ducks continue to die by digging into the sand
for food and releasing buried oil.

At the bottom of the food chain, pink salmon eggs and small
invertebrates such as mussels and clams are not yet back to their
original population levels.

And local fishers, who lost more than U.S. $286 million after the
herring fishery collapsed in 1989, are still waiting for the fishery to
rebound.

Peter, I'm curious. just where did you find all this info? I
think you better check all your facts. don't follow the company
line printed else where. and, BTW, Halliburton is based out of
Abu Dhabi, and a badly run company. BP is only second to Exxon,
on their safety/spill record. and,as for Adare, his use of explosive,
depleted the oxygen on a well head. then the head was capped. it's
the same way as done today. remember all the burning wells during
the gulf war? blow and cap is faster and safer. as you said, i spent
a few years in the oil fields over seas. my family has an interest.

Drifter...





On 5/14/2010 3:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:


It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this
attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including
some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is
looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain
mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5
minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when
inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like
this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck.

There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other
countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less
than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S.
does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or
without regulation, should employ these methods anyway.

It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to
verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete
casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of
these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were
an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be
very hesitant to use their services.


There are only two companies in the world that offers those services.
One is Halliburton. The other is Schlumberger, which is not a
domestically owned company, so environmental rules would be difficult to
enforce.

That leaves Halliburton. There is no one else offering these services.



I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a
large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an
isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper
outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably
could have avoided this problem.

There is no way to specify from the top down, because, often the forces
encountered are so far outside expectation, experience, or imagination,
there is no specification. Mother nature in her fury is not something we
can predict, nor manage. If we could, we'd be powering New York with
lightning.

We've gotten so used to controlling natural events, as a species, that
we sometimes forget that there are things outside our ability to
control, outside our ability to manage, or even deal with.

Methane bubbles are the nature, and one of the great risks, of the oil
business. I worked for a petroleum geologist some years ago. And I
expressed these same concerns, and as an active broadcaster at the time
(he owned the radio station) his interests were served in answering my
questions. So he took me out onto the platforms where I was allowed to
ask straight forward unvarnished questions from non-PR types...ie,
working crew on the platform. Since he was a scientist and not a
wildcatter, I got a nowhere near exposure than when I asked the same
questions of those actively producing. One of my clients owns oil wells,
and I get a lot of first hand, there, too. And it's a much different
perspective.

The risks are enormous. And the forces being dealt with are equally
enormous. And nearly impossible to predict. Even when estimates are
expanded to 10 times expected pressures and more, they can be inadequate
to what's really encountered. You must bear in mind that the technology
is often developed on the spot in direct response to conditions that
can't be predicted, and are fueled by Mother Nature's moods.

Companies like Red Adair came into being to bring solutions to wells
that can't be controlled. Adair's solution is to dynamite them shut and
destroy the well. A massive resort to violence. Because management is
impossible.

It's a business full of risks. That's why there are only two companies
doing it. Halliburton and Schlumberger. BP hires the best, with the best
track record. That's Halliburton. Schlumberger does not have the
resources, the experience or the ability to do what Halliburton does.
Nor do they give enough of a **** about the consequences of an accident
to put them in charge of such a well as Deepwater Horizon.

You should see a Schlumberger site. Halliburton's sites are surgical
theatres by comparison.

But, again, we're dealing with Nature and her whims. **** happens.

Nonetheless, BP has the best track record.

The award, had it been issued, would have been earned.



Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at
the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the
top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could
sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose
we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those
proportionate shares.


There's no doubt it's going to be a legal mess. And there's going to be
a lot of punitive action clamored for. But likely, that will be
politically motivated. Not equal to the actual damage.

But here's something that's not being discussed: The amount of this
spill is about the same volume of petroleum that seeps into the Gulf
through the silt, every day. And that seepage has been going on for
centuries. The ocean, and nature have found a way to deal with that
seepage. And a protracted oil slick hasn't developed from the hundreds
of years of seepage in the Gulf.

Which goes a long way toward explaining that about 35% of the oil that's
been spilled is no longer in the slick. It's already disappeared. Not
just dissipated. Gone. It, too, has been gobbled up by the ocean. Some
of it's settling out, and attaching to the silt, as with natural
seepage. Some has dissipated. Some has been consumed by natural chemical
processes, and some has been consumed by biological entities. All of
which points to the growing understanding that the damage, as expected,
will be less than predicted, with far, far shorter endurance than claimed.

The Exxon Valdez spill was supposed to have destroyed the oceanic
environment for 100 miles around the spill for the next 150 years.

Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life. The
oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local lifestyle is
better than before the spill.

Doesn't mean it wasn't bad. Just that it wasn't as cataclysmic as the
hand wringers were claiming.

This one won't be either.

On 5/14/10 22:47 , Drifter wrote:
Peter, I'm curious. just where did you find all this info?


Read it again.


I
think you better check all your facts. don't follow the company
line printed else where. and, BTW, Halliburton is based out of
Abu Dhabi, and a badly run company. BP is only second to Exxon,
on their safety/spill record. and,as for Adare, his use of explosive,
depleted the oxygen on a well head. then the head was capped. it's
the same way as done today. remember all the burning wells during
the gulf war? blow and cap is faster and safer. as you said, i spent
a few years in the oil fields over seas. my family has an interest.

Drifter...






On 5/14/2010 3:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:


It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this
attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including
some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is
looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain
mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5
minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when
inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like
this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck.

There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other
countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less
than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S.
does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or
without regulation, should employ these methods anyway.

It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to
verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete
casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of
these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were
an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be
very hesitant to use their services.


There are only two companies in the world that offers those services.
One is Halliburton. The other is Schlumberger, which is not a
domestically owned company, so environmental rules would be difficult to
enforce.

That leaves Halliburton. There is no one else offering these services.



I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a
large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an
isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper
outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably
could have avoided this problem.

There is no way to specify from the top down, because, often the forces
encountered are so far outside expectation, experience, or imagination,
there is no specification. Mother nature in her fury is not something we
can predict, nor manage. If we could, we'd be powering New York with
lightning.

We've gotten so used to controlling natural events, as a species, that
we sometimes forget that there are things outside our ability to
control, outside our ability to manage, or even deal with.

Methane bubbles are the nature, and one of the great risks, of the oil
business. I worked for a petroleum geologist some years ago. And I
expressed these same concerns, and as an active broadcaster at the time
(he owned the radio station) his interests were served in answering my
questions. So he took me out onto the platforms where I was allowed to
ask straight forward unvarnished questions from non-PR types...ie,
working crew on the platform. Since he was a scientist and not a
wildcatter, I got a nowhere near exposure than when I asked the same
questions of those actively producing. One of my clients owns oil wells,
and I get a lot of first hand, there, too. And it's a much different
perspective.

The risks are enormous. And the forces being dealt with are equally
enormous. And nearly impossible to predict. Even when estimates are
expanded to 10 times expected pressures and more, they can be inadequate
to what's really encountered. You must bear in mind that the technology
is often developed on the spot in direct response to conditions that
can't be predicted, and are fueled by Mother Nature's moods.

Companies like Red Adair came into being to bring solutions to wells
that can't be controlled. Adair's solution is to dynamite them shut and
destroy the well. A massive resort to violence. Because management is
impossible.

It's a business full of risks. That's why there are only two companies
doing it. Halliburton and Schlumberger. BP hires the best, with the best
track record. That's Halliburton. Schlumberger does not have the
resources, the experience or the ability to do what Halliburton does.
Nor do they give enough of a **** about the consequences of an accident
to put them in charge of such a well as Deepwater Horizon.

You should see a Schlumberger site. Halliburton's sites are surgical
theatres by comparison.

But, again, we're dealing with Nature and her whims. **** happens.

Nonetheless, BP has the best track record.

The award, had it been issued, would have been earned.



Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at
the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the
top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could
sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose
we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those
proportionate shares.


There's no doubt it's going to be a legal mess. And there's going to be
a lot of punitive action clamored for. But likely, that will be
politically motivated. Not equal to the actual damage.

But here's something that's not being discussed: The amount of this
spill is about the same volume of petroleum that seeps into the Gulf
through the silt, every day. And that seepage has been going on for
centuries. The ocean, and nature have found a way to deal with that
seepage. And a protracted oil slick hasn't developed from the hundreds
of years of seepage in the Gulf.

Which goes a long way toward explaining that about 35% of the oil that's
been spilled is no longer in the slick. It's already disappeared. Not
just dissipated. Gone. It, too, has been gobbled up by the ocean. Some
of it's settling out, and attaching to the silt, as with natural
seepage. Some has dissipated. Some has been consumed by natural chemical
processes, and some has been consumed by biological entities. All of
which points to the growing understanding that the damage, as expected,
will be less than predicted, with far, far shorter endurance than
claimed.

The Exxon Valdez spill was supposed to have destroyed the oceanic
environment for 100 miles around the spill for the next 150 years.

Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life. The
oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local lifestyle is
better than before the spill.

Doesn't mean it wasn't bad. Just that it wasn't as cataclysmic as the
hand wringers were claiming.

This one won't be either.

Coast worried as pivotal Summer season nears.
http://www.clarionledger.com

Underwater Katrina Lurking? Huge underwater oil plumes.

It Affects Mississippi, it Affects ME!
It Affects millions of people in other States in America too.At least
Twenty Percent of America's Seafood comes from the Gulf of Mexico.Do you
want imported Seafood from Asia, other countries?
cuhulin

Michigan Joins other States in health care LAWSUIT.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=289310

That is GOOD News.
GOOD on yer Michigan, GOOD on yer!

Whose Country is This?
One thing is for Sure, the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC Of AMERICA IS NOT the
Born in Kenya! TERRORIST USURPER'S COUNTRY!!!

http://www.devilfinder.com
Constitutional Republic of America

NOT a Damn democracy!!!
cuhulin